🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mVsod.177242$df2.89454@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:03cod.198742$9b.62183@edtnps84...
>> In article <gJbod.198728$9b.104050@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:xrbod.198725$9b.8138@edtnps84...
>> >> In article <yebod.198717$9b.129259@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you've just made an argument - that I don't understand the
>definitions
>> >of
>> >> >what
>> >> >> I'm talking about.  You've neither demonstrated the veracity of that
>> >> >argument,
>> >> >> nor have you provided any indication that you understand the
>> >definitions
>> >> >of
>> >> >> what I'm talking about.  If you don't understand the definitions of
>the
>> >> >words
>> >> >> I'm using, how could you know that I don't understand them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Simple.  "To put this in perspective, there is no behavioral
>difference
>> >> >between engaging in Pascal's wager, and engaging in an OCD ritual
>> >> >(obsessive-compulsive disorder)", indicates that you don't know what
>OCD
>> >is.
>> >> >Whether I understand it or not becomes irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But I do know what OCD is, and I'm certain I've read far more on the
>> >subject
>> >> than you have.  I happen to have a friend with a severe case and so I
>did
>> >quite
>> >> a bit of research on it last year.  So that means you don't know what
>OCD
>> >is.
>> >>
>> >I see.  Trust me.  I can GUARANTEE you that I know considerably more
>about
>> >OCD than you do unless you have specific education (not personal research
>> >because of your freind) on the subject.
>> >
>>
>> No, trust me, you do not know nearly as much about OCD as I do.  I am a
>very
>> highly functioning autodidact and a couple months of my study on a subject
>is
>> equivelent to years of graduate work.
>>
>>
>
>LOL!  There are many who claim such things, and in the absence of any proof
>(and given your statements above, proof to the contrary) you'll have to
>pardon my scepticism.
>
>

I'm just as skeptical about your expertise regarding mental health, 
particularly OCD, as you are of mine.  But I am prepared to discuss any aspect 
of the topic with you in order to find out if my skepticism is warranted.  You, 
on the other hand, don't seem to be as forthright.  You made an accusation that 
I don't know much about OCD because of a claim I made.  You can either attempt 
to refute the claim or our ad hominems will remain deadlocked.